I like you, Animl. Not sure if you are the sort of person who is OK with political discussion with me, or will get angered if I disagree. If you don't want it, let me know, and I won't do it.
There are some folks who are OK with political discussion with me and still be friends (like semp and, I hope, Busher). Some aren't, which is OK.
Vance is on vid that admits he lied, in his own voice.
The full quote is:
Bash: "He said Hatians are eating dogs and cats. Can you affirmatively say now that that is a rumor that has no basis with evidence?"
Vance: "Dana, the evidence is the first-hand account of my constituents who are telling me that this happened."
Rather clearly, there Vance is saying there is basis -- that his own constituents with first-hand knowledge are reporting to him that it is true.
Vance continuing: "And by the way, I've been trying to talk about the problems in Springfield for months, and the American media ignored it. There was a Congressional hearing just last week of angel moms who lost children because Kamala Harris let criminal migrants into this country who then murdered their children. The American media totally ignored this stuff until Donald Trump and I started talking about cat memes. If I have to create stories so that the American media actually pays attention to the suffering of the American people, then that's what I'm going to do."
So here is where we get the one sentence clipped out: "If I have to create stories so that the American media actually pays attention to the suffering of the American people, then that's what I'm going to do."
If you don't look at any context, you conclude he just said he made it up and it's a lie.
However--
When you look at the context, we see that he just clearly said he didn't make it up people eating cats, and it has basis in actual reports. We see that "create stories" refers to talking about cat memes (not whether or not people are eating cats, which, again, he already said he didn't make up) to push the media into covering the issues.
Media does this all the time. Take a sentence out of important context and tell you what it says. Yet when you look at the whole thing, you see that's not the whole truth.
Here's the relevant section of interview:
https://youtu.be/Hxzh_CAwvEA?t=633Both shooters had supported orange.
Seems moot, as both failed assassins obviously didn't like Trump.
But it is incorrect.
Crooks registered Republican but donated to Act Blue. One classmate said that Crooks was a conservative. Another classmate said that Crooks thought all politicians sucked and especially disliked Trump (such as here:
https://nypost.com/2024/07/17/us-news/thomas-matthew-crooks-mocked-classmate-for-supporting-trump-in-2016-he-did-not-like-our-politicians/ ).
I live in a state which, like Pennsylvania, has primaries in a way that it is not uncommon for democrats to register as republicans to vote in the republican primary (to boost the candidate they least hate or boost a weaker candidate). Then they vote for the democrat in the election. It doesn't mean much when a person is registered republican unless they are registered republican for like 5 years in a row.
Routh is a democrat. In his self-published book, he says he once supported Trump but now hates him and hopes Trump is assassinated. Routh's recorded voting record and his statements of public support are for democrats. He donated 20 times to Act Blue.
Because the truth is so easy to find.
It isn't easy. Because --
News on all sides hard-pushes partisan points of view. If you aren't looking at news from both sides, your opinion is just assigned to you by a partisan news source. Both sides is not MSNBC, CNN, ABC, etc. on the one side and Fox on the other. It is MSNBC, CNN, ABC, Fox, etc. on the one side and Tucker Carlson, Gateway Pundit, Zero Hedge, right-leaning X posts, etc. on the other side. That's the only way to see the spectrum. Then you see which side is leaving out what, and where they agree. That's the only way to have any chance of seeing the truth.
It is work to do that. Most people don't do that.
